Well, if you are fully aware of the arguments of both sides we don't
really have to go over it, not to mention it is a typical Muslim
strategy to go off topic in an effort to flood Christians with
questions. Of course they have to answer them all right or else. It's a
High five, down low, too slow, ha you loose, Christians all wrong,
Muslims all right attitude that comes next. Let's not forget, you are
not here to learn. By the same token, I am not hear to learn about the
typical Muslim bias. Any Islamic website will give you that, which is in
contrast to the Muslims I asssociate with, work with, and have
worshipped with. Yes, I said worshipped with.

So, the point of this rant is...you will avoid answering the question. You were the one who insisted that we rely on the KJV to better understand the meaning of Titus 2:13. I did that, but then showed that this tactic backfires because there are other verses which purportedly point to Jesus' alleged "divinity" or to the trinity. Instead of responding to this argument, you went off on tangents.

Originally posted by Webber

At least you know the "trinity" didn't include Mary, or did it? So it's
not your amount of knowledge thats flawed, just your opinion. It's not
your fault you can't read what's written, you've been told what to
believe.

Isn't it funny how you just criticized me for "going off topic" and yet here we are 10 seconds later with you...going off topic!

Do you want to discuss the absurd Christian propaganda about Mary and the trinity? This is not the place. Open a separate thread and we will discuss it there.

Originally posted by Webber

If you really are that knowledgable then you would also know Muhammad
once said "Don't quote me on anything that isn't in the Quran. You also
have hadith. Some start with "It is recorded that" and some should start
with Once upon a time. Problem is you can't tell the difference. Even
the Sunnah is not officially considered as the Divine words of God.
These things only add confusion to Muslims and those they are trying to
teach.

Again going off topic? You are all over the place!

The fact is that you don't get to tell Muslims what they can and cannot use. The majority of Muslims rely on both the Quran and Sunnah, so you can be sure that we will use both. If you don't like it, too bad.

Originally posted by Webber

Yeah, I get the don't kill your own kids for fear of poverty, but missed
the "during a war" part. Get the feeling you just added that for
effect.

See point #3. I know you would love to determine what Muslims can use for guidance, but you don't get to decide that Sheik Webber!

Originally posted by Webber

Of course there's nothing humanitarian about genocide, the question was
is it evil. The next question would be, Is God a humanitarian? God does
not look at human life the way we humanitarians do. Is it a good idea to
squeeze God into our modern day ideals?

Wow. So you are questioning whether genocide is "evil". I would think that all God-fearing people would immediately say "YES!".

So, do you also think that the various genocides that have occurred throughout human history cannot be necessarily regarded as "evil"? Hitler claimed he was doing God's work ("divine providence"). Did the fact that he brought God into it make his genocide to be excusable? Or do you, like most human beings, see the man and his work as being pure evil which had nothing to do with God?

Originally posted by Webber

Don't be shocked, how many didn't have aids, or STDs/we. Not excuses,
possibilities unknown for lack of records. Wrong place, wrong time,
inheritance of land is a gimme. Add to that a nation bent on doing
everything wrong every time God, (or Moses) turn around makes me wonder
why God let them last so long.

You are not presenting any facts, just speculation and assumptions. In other words, just more (possible) excuses.

One wonders why if God intended to given the Israelites control of the land, children and babies...and animals...indeed entire nations, still had to be destroyed? That is where excuse #2 comes in; the excuse that the inhabitants of the Holy Land could entice the Israelites to commit sin. So, instead of making the Israelites responsible for their own actions, instead the inhabitants are killed off because of the possibility that the Israelites would willingly follow in their customs.

Originally posted by Webber

So it's recorded that God commands it. How is that glorified? None of us
know all the reason, nor the mind of God. You were expecting me to come
up with why our humanitarian God would do such a thing?

Umm, saying things like "the people shall be afraid", "sorrow shall take hold..." and "all the inhabitants shall melt away" certainly sounds like a glorification of the brutality to come.

We already know the "reason". In fact, there were two, as I already pointed out.

Originally posted by Webber

With 72 virgins...I like tossing that in the mix too.

Actually
you showed me where it says don't kill your own, nothing in the
references said anything about war. If you want to believe it's between
the lines it's up to you. Not going to condemn you for it, after all,
none of these discussions should be the difference between heaven and
hell for any of us.

So far, Webber has not offered any substantive rebuttal. Rather, he has changed topics whenever he felt like it and threw in what I can only assume were attempted jabs (such as the 72 virgins gag ).

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. People like you are a dime a dozen...the self-appointed Islamic scholar wannabes who think they have figured out what Islam is all about.

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

So, the point of this rant is...you will avoid answering the
question.You were the one who insisted
that we rely on the KJV to better understand the meaning of Titus 2:13.I did that, but then showed that this tactic
backfires because there are other verses which purportedly point to Jesus'
alleged "divinity" or to the trinity.Instead of responding to this argument, you went off on tangents.

The point of the ďrantĒ is, you asked for an explanation of
Titus 2:13, then said it opens another can of worms that you are very familiar
with. The plan was to rehash an old argument you had with someone else to see
if I knew as much about it? Or just to go over arguments you believe youíve won
before regardless of the original topic?

Originally posted by Webber

At least you know the "trinity"
didn't include Mary, or did it? So it's not your amount of knowledge thats
flawed, just your opinion. It's not your fault you can't read what's written,
you've been told what to believe.

Isn't it funny how you just criticized me for
"going off topic" and yet here we are 10 seconds later with
you...going off topic!

Just a quick response to your off topic. The trinity theory
is flawed from the start. We'll get to that some day.

Originally posted by Webber

If you
really are that knowledgable then you would also know Muhammad once said
"Don't quote me on anything that isn't in the Quran. You also have hadith.
Some start with "It is recorded that" and some should start with Once
upon a time. Problem is you can't tell the difference. Even the Sunnah is not
officially considered as the Divine words of God. These things only add
confusion to Muslims and those they are trying to teach.

Again going off topic?You are all over the place!

The fact is that you don't get to tell Muslims what they can
and cannot use.The majority of Muslims
rely on both the Quran and Sunnah, so you can be sure that we will use
both.If you don't like it, too
bad.

I didnít, Muhammad did. You said Sunnah and I responded. Itís
amazing how much the Quran says that gets hadithed away.

Originally posted by Webber

Yeah, I get the don't kill your own kids for
fear of poverty, but missed the "during a war" part. Get the feeling
you just added that for effect.

See point #3.I know you would love to determine what Muslims can use for guidance,
but you don't get to decide that Sheik Webber!

Wow, just got here and Iím already a sheik, not bad. Thot Iíd
be stuck a newbie for much longer. I canít determine what you use for guidance,
but thereís no end to it if you can pull stories out of a hat.

Originally posted by Webber

Of course there's nothing humanitarian about
genocide, the question was is it evil. The next question would be, Is God a
humanitarian? God does not look at human life the way we humanitarians do. Is
it a good idea to squeeze God into our modern day ideals?

Wow.So you
are questioning whether genocide is "evil".I would think that all God-fearing people
would immediately say "YES!".

Didnít say I was questioning it, the question was asked back
on the first page. Iím not going to remain a very good sheik if you keep
twisting my words.

So, do you also think that the various genocides that
have occurred throughout human history cannot be necessarily regarded as
"evil"?Hitler claimed he was
doing God's work ("divine providence").Did the fact that he brought God into it make
his genocide to be excusable?Or do you,
like most human beings, see the man and his work as being pure evil which had
nothing to do with God?

Rhetorical. Does every bombing that happens in the name of
Allah really have to do with Allah?

Originally posted by Webber

Don't be shocked, how many didn't have aids,
or STDs/we. Not excuses, possibilities unknown for lack of records. Wrong
place, wrong time, inheritance of land is a gimme. Add to that a nation bent on
doing everything wrong every time God, (or Moses) turn around makes me wonder
why God let them last so long.

You are not presenting any facts, just speculation
and assumptions.In other words, just
more (possible) excuses.

So you must have all the facts.

One wonders why if God intended to given the
Israelites control of the land, children and babies...and animals...indeed
entire nations, still had to be destroyed?That is where excuse #2 comes in; the excuse that the inhabitants of the
Holy Land could entice the Israelites to commit sin.So, instead of making the Israelites
responsible for their own actions, instead the inhabitants are killed off
because of the possibility that the Israelites would willingly follow in their
customs.

So you donít have all
the facts?

Originally posted by Webber

So it's recorded that God commands it. How is
that glorified? None of us know all the reason, nor the mind of God. You were
expecting me to come up with why our humanitarian God would do such a
thing?

Umm, saying things like "the people shall be
afraid", "sorrow shall take hold..." and "all the
inhabitants shall melt away" certainly sounds like a glorification of the
brutality to come.

I guess that would depend on whether you envision an author
standing on a hilltop declaring these statements while waving a flag, or a
sober author writing down the predicted outcome.

Originally posted by Webber

Actually you showed me where it says don't kill your own,
nothing in the references said anything about war. If you want to believe it's
between the lines it's up to you. Not going to condemn you for it, after all,
none of these discussions should be the difference between heaven and hell for
any of us.

So now Islamispeace turns to his supposed audience and gives
his closing statement for all, or whoever to hear.

So far,
Webber has not offered any substantive rebuttal.Rather, he has changed topics whenever he
felt like it and threw in what I can only assume were attempted jabs (such as
the 72 virgins gag ).

May as well add...

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.People like you are a dime a dozen...the
self-appointed Islamic scholar wannabes who think they have figured out what
Islam is all about.

Iím with ya buddy! Two dimes in a dozen. Thereís always a self-appointed Islamic
scholar wannabe who tells the Christians where they stand on every site.

LOL@†16 pages of†contempt for Christians not giving the "right" answers.

†

As for Titus 2:13, read the King James version, or earlier.

IMHO†English translations/transliterations since then have†added the beliefs of the "scholar" through subtle changes and punctuation. I won't even argue NIV and this verse is one of the reasons why.

†

Go ahead, read the verse in the KJV and tell me if it reads the same.

Now you know Paul was not a trinitarian.

†

Just wondering...

Genocide. Is it really evil to kill babies? Does the Quran say so? I don't want any "It is recorded that..." The Quran is your†divine book. If you don't find it then it is only your opinion, regardless of how many agree with you.

†

Nothing wrong with humanitarian views, and it's obvious we all have them now but it's hardly fair to force humanitarians into justifying genocide thousands of years ago.

†

Idol worshippers had how many laws? Where was their morality? If they were a nation with aides what use would it be to preserve the children? Were those "poor" oxen and donkeys the subject of their worship?

†

Rather than taking it upon yourselves to decide God would never do such a thing, how about why would God do it? Problem is, there is no explanation given. Does not mean there wasn't one.

†

BTW, the Bible does not glorify genocide, it†records it.

†

Muslims say it's an honour to die in the service of Allah. Allah says C4 and ball bearings is not what I had in mind.

†

†

†

†

†

†

Weber,
In Islam we know God as "The Just". God binds us to be just. God forbids us to take a life unless be by way of justice, i.e. a killer's, or one's who cause mischief on earth.
What we are talking about is that in OT God is quoted to have given commands to those who are "God's people" to kill even babies and infants, even more to kills animals, trees and so on.
We know that God has everything in His control and command but unjustified killings of innocent ones is something God forbids, and it is not the qualities of God to be unjust or unkind as portrayed by the OT and are a problem for anyone who claims that God is Just and loving.
Hasan

I just want to add a comment on the NIV --- which is quite commonly used, even in many Churches. --- The work on this new contemporary translation began in 1965, and it is more of a Ďscholarlyí version, --- but it has its difficulties.
--- I want to say that I donít use the NIV except for reference, as I did in this case.

The Canon of Scripture was approved about 365 AD by all the Churches, and Jerome set about to translate from the Hebrew, Greek (and what already existed in Latin), an authorized Bible which was the Latin Vulgate. It was used from 400-1600, when it was translated into English in the Douay Version (of which I have a copy).

About the same time, King James of England gathered 47 Bible Scholars and linguists to translate into English from the most ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and the result was the King James Version, about 1611.
The Douay and the King James are almost verse by verse the same, --- which proves that there were no changes made in the Latin Vulgate, through those 1200 years of the Church, --- and the King James, translated from the Hebrew and Greek is the same except for the choice of words of the translators.

I normally use the New King James which is an update of the language from the Old English, but the verse structure is the same, --- And the inspiration is the same. --- Also the New American Standard Version is good,
Regardless of the attacks on the Bible, God has preserved His Message the same, has He not?

--- The young man, Titus, was a convert of Paulís ministry and became a trusted companion, and he then became the Pastor of the Church in Crete, to set it in order and, Ďto appoint elders, men of proven spiritual character in their homes and businesses.í --- This is a good formula for new and Ďreformedí Churches, is it not?

However--- The good teaching continues in Titus 3:
1 Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work,
2 to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.
3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.
4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared,
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men.

9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.
10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition,
11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.

Good to see other Christians on the site. This sure beats
Christian sites. Iíve been booted, ignored, collected numerous titles, (besides
Sheik) and virtually sent to hell on Christian sites. I like that Muslims have
a more open approach to debate, as inÖthey are eager to debate.

Hi Webber,

I just want to add a comment on the NIV --- which is quite
commonly used, even in many Churches. --- The work on this new contemporary
translation began in 1965, and it is more of a Ďscholarlyí version, --- but it
has its difficulties.

--- I want to say that
I donít use the NIV except for reference, as I did in this case.

I really didnít introduce myself here, but you could call me
a Pauline Christian if you like. Iíve been called a couple other names because
of it, but it doesnít change Paul at all so no biggie. As Islamispeace noted
Iím KJV only. I can read it, I can understand it, and itís where I get my
inspiration so why confuse the issue?

The Canon of Scripture was approved about 365 AD by
all the Churches, and Jerome set about to translate from the Hebrew, Greek (and
what already existed in Latin), an authorized Bible which was the Latin
Vulgate. It was used from 400-1600, when it was translated into English in the
Douay Version (of which I have a copy).

About the same time, King James of England gathered 47 Bible
Scholars and linguists to translate into English from the most ancient Hebrew
and Greek manuscripts, and the result was the King James Version, about 1611.

The Douay and the
King James are almost verse by verse the same, --- which proves that there were
no changes made in the Latin Vulgate, through those 1200 years of the Church,
--- and the King James, translated from the Hebrew and Greek is the same except
for the choice of words of the translators.

I normally use the New King James which is an update of the
language from the Old English, but the verse structure is the same, --- And the
inspiration is the same. --- Also the New American Standard Version is good,

This is what Iím talking about. Of course Iím nowhere with
Latin, Hebrew, nor Greek so next best is English. Two separate Bibles
translated from the same source, in the same era, without attachment that are
almost word for word say more of the accuracy than any translation since.

The NIV Committee on Bible Translation were 15 scholars that
of which half resigned within the first few years. One thing you can count on
is that every member of that committee was/is a Trinitarian. Not just Trinitarian,
but most are Fire and brimstone Trinitarians. This is where it irks me to see
the NIV create a new meaning for the old message.

{quote] Regardless of
the attacks on the Bible, God has preserved His Message the same, has He not?[/quote]

He has.

--- The young
man, Titus, was a convert of Paulís ministry and became a trusted companion,
and he then became the Pastor of the Church in Crete, to set it in order and,
Ďto appoint elders, men of proven spiritual character in their homes and
businesses.í --- This is a good formula for new and Ďreformedí Churches, is it
not?

Yes, Titus was successful
in his ministry and well thought of by Paul. Paulís epistles to Titus contained
many good teachings.

Glad you added, I must confess I got stuck up on the NIV mistranslation
and missed the true reason Titus was written.

However--- The good teaching continues in Titus 3:

1 Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to
obey, to be ready for every good work,

2 to speak evil of no
one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.

3 For we ourselves
were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and
pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.

4 But when the
kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared,

5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but
according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and
renewing of the Holy Spirit,

6 whom He poured out
on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

7 that having been justified by His grace we should become
heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

8 This is a faithful
saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have
believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good
and profitable to men.

9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and
strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.

10 Reject a divisive
man after the first and second admonition,

11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being
self-condemned.

The point of the ďrantĒ is, you asked for an explanation of
Titus 2:13, then said it opens another can of worms that you are very familiar
with. The plan was to rehash an old argument you had with someone else to see
if I knew as much about it? Or just to go over arguments you believe youíve won
before regardless of the original topic?

The "plan" was to deal with your appeal to the KJV from an objective point of view. If you think that we should rely on the KJV instead of other translations, because it supposedly provides a more accurate translation, than the logical conclusion would be that the KJV would support your point of view on a consistent basis. I showed that while the wording of Titus 2:13 is different from the NIV, in other places, it clearly refers to a trinitarian doctrine (i.e. that Jesus is divine). Instead of offering a substantive rebuttal, you accused of changing topics, which is ironic because you have attempted to change the topic of this thread on a few occasions.

Originally posted by Webber

Just a quick response to your off topic. The trinity theory
is flawed from the start. We'll get to that some day.

Well, of course it is flawed! You can blame your fellow Christians for it. Don't blame Muslims.

Originally posted by Webber

didnít, Muhammad did. You said Sunnah and I responded. Itís
amazing how much the Quran says that gets hadithed away.

No, what's "amazing" is that you like to change topics whenever you feel like it and then accuse others of changing topics. We can deal with the Hadiths in a separate thread. This is not the place to discuss it. The topic of this thread is the Biblical genocide.

Originally posted by Webber

Wow, just got here and Iím already a sheik, not bad. Thot Iíd
be stuck a newbie for much longer. I canít determine what you use for guidance,
but thereís no end to it if you can pull stories out of a hat.

Again to repeat: regarding the prohibition in Islam against killing children, see the points I provided. Point #3 specifically refers to the prohibition of killing children during wartime, whereas the Bible says that God allowed the Israelites to kill children.

Originally posted by Webber

Didnít say I was questioning it, the question was asked back
on the first page. Iím not going to remain a very good sheik if you keep
twisting my words.

Really? You weren't "questioning it"? Isn't this what you wrote:

"Of course there's nothing humanitarian about
genocide, the question was is it evil. The next question would be, Is God a
humanitarian? God does not look at human life the way we humanitarians do. Is
it a good idea to squeeze God into our modern day ideals?"

I submit that genocide is evil, no matter when it was done or by whom. Do you agree?

Originally posted by Webber

Rhetorical. Does every bombing that happens in the name of
Allah really have to do with Allah?

You just repeated the same point I wan making but did not answer the question. Isn't the reason that you are not condemning the genocide in the Bible because the Bible claims it was God's command? The truth is that this is the only reason why Christians do not condemn the genocide, while hypocritically condemning other acts of violence. Similarly, if the Bible had claimed that God allowed rape, you would have a hard time condemning it because "God" was allegedly involved. As I said on this thread long before you came to the forum, a person can justify any type of atrocity as long as "God" allegedly gave the command.

Originally posted by Webber

So you must have all the facts.

Ah, speaking of "twisting of words"...

I never said I have all the facts. I said that your theories about the people the Israelites killed having AIDS was based on speculation and not facts. You have presented no evidence for this latest theory. The burden of proof is on you to prove your theory.

The truth is that you have simply added to a growing list of excuses presented by other Christians on this thread. There was even one person who tried to insinuate that the Canaanites were not even fully human! The excuse you have provided is that the people had AIDS! Apparently, that was a good enough reason (if it was even true) to kill everyone.

Originally posted by Webber

So you donít have all
the facts?

Obviously, you have nothing substantive to add to this discussion.

Originally posted by Webber

I guess that would depend on whether you envision an author
standing on a hilltop declaring these statements while waving a flag, or a
sober author writing down the predicted outcome.

These verses would have been recited over and over again by the Israelites. It matters little whether they were declared by an "author standing on a hilltop" or not. These verses refer to the violence that was to come in a threatening tone. One could argue that it was preparing the Israelites for the gruesome "job".

Originally posted by Webber

Iím with ya buddy! Two dimes in a dozen. Thereís always a self-appointed Islamic
scholar wannabe who tells the Christians where they stand on every site.

So Webber, anything substantive to add?

So far, all you have done is make petty one-liners and bad jokes, changed topics at your whim, told Muslims that they can't use the Hadiths, and provided new excuses for the Biblical genocide. Good job!

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.